Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Dilip Chandulal Shah and Shri Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals are directed against the same impugned order.Therefore, they were taken up for consideration together and are disposed of by this common order.When the appeal came up for hearing on 18.3.04, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of Shri Dilip Chandulal Shah. It was submitted that the appellant had injury on his leg and therefore, not able to travel to be present in the hearing. Since the case is very old and it has been specifically posted for hearing on 18.3.04, adjournment request was rejected and the case was taken up.2. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Dilip Chandulal Shah. The penalty is under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act and the finding of the Commissioner is that Shri Shah is guilty of abetment.The case related to evasion of customs duty on the import of dyes through mis-declaration of description, value and quantity. The imports were in the name of M/s Varun International Trading Corporation and Shri B.M. Sood is the Propriet...
G.G. Malpani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This miscellaneous application seeks restoration of appeal and stay petition, which were dismissed by Tribunal order, dated 23-9-2003.Tribunal vide the said order noted that the appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice and the appeals are not admitted as not pressed.2. The ld. Advocate pleads that on the date of the hearing, the consultant of the appellants was unable to attend the hearing on account of illness. The matter listed before the Tribunal was only for hearing the stay application and not for hearing the appeal.Consequently, on account of non-representation by the appellants, the stay petition alone could have been dismissed and not the appeal itself.3. I note that the prayer made by the appellants has a strong force.Accordingly, the order dismissing the stay application and the appeals are re-called and the stay application is posted for hearing on 9th July, 2004....
M. Guruprasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ328CAT
1. The present O. A. is filed for directing the respondents not to conduct the departmental inquiry till a decision in criminal proceedings is reached.2. The applicant is working as Travelling Ticket Examiner in the Mumbai Division of Central Railway. On 22/23.4.2003 the applicant was on duty in train No. 1093 Dn. According to the applicant a decoy check was conducted by incompetent persons in contravention of the Rules in the Vigilance Manual. As per Vigilance Inspectors version the applicant was accosted at Kasara Station on 23.04.2003 and sought to show the personal and Railway cash. The applicant refused to cooperate with the Vigilance Inspectors. The applicant with a view to avoid detection, pushed the Vigilance Inspectors and the independent witnesses and threatened the Vigilance Inspector. The chargesheet was issued to the applicant. The chargesheet mentioned that the Vigilance Department had a source of information that Travelling Ticket Examiners in train No.1093 Dn. were col...
Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)94ITD411(Mum.)
1. The above appeal by assessee for asst. yr. 2000-01 is directed against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, dt. 10th Feb., 2004.2. CO No. 100/Mum/2004 has been preferred by Revenue-respondent in respect of assessee's above appeal.3. First we take up the issue of delay in the filing of CO by the Department. The CO has been filed with a delay of 31 days.3.1 We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the point of delay in preferment of Revenue's cross-objection and have also perused the records including the Department's petition for condonation of delay.3.2 The CIT, Departmental Representative, Shri G.D. Chandorkar, has contended that there is a delay of 29 days in filing of CO by the Department. He has contended that the related AO, who was to file the CO, in respect of assessee's appeal, was busy in time-barring assessments and was also holding additional charge of Dy. CIT, Circle-21, Mumbai, and so the aforesaid delay, in filing of CO, has taken place. He has contended that there ha...
Haldyn Glass Limited Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR197; [2004(102)FLR1052]; (2004)IIILLJ904Bom; 2004(3)MhLj829
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Two petitions are before the Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Both the petitions are directed against an award dated 30th March 2000 of the 6th Labour Court at Mumbai.2. The petitions, it is common ground, relate to termination of the services of two workmen, Eknath Harishchandra Katkar and Dinanath Sharda Yadav, on a charge of misconduct. Two chargesheets were issued to Eknath Katkar by the employer. The first chargesheet dated 10th January 1984 recited that it is alleged that on 9th January 1984, while he was on duty at about 12.10 p.m., the workman acting in concert with certain other workmen, incited, instigated and abetted the workmen of the Quality Control Department on duty to wilfully slow down their performance of work during normal conditions as also to reject good bottles and pass bad bottles with a view to causing loss of production and wrongful loss of revenue to the employer. This, it is alleged, was to pressurise th...
Sukhsagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR42; 2005(2)BomCR386; 2004(3)MhLj1010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 waives service. Mr. Sakseria appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioners have challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, an order dated 3rd November, 2003 passed by the Minister for Co-operation of the Government of Maharashtra in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.3. The dispute in the present case arises out of a scheme for redevelopment that has been approved by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ('MHADA') in pursuance of the provisions of Development Control Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. There is a property by the name of Ganjawala Compound, situated at Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 008, comprised of C.S. No. 249 and 1/249, adm...
Sir Jamshetjee Jeejeebhoy Baronet and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom32; 2004(4)ALLMR759; 2004(5)BomCR40; 2004(4)MhLj208
A.P. Shah, Actg.C.J.1. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner trust is entitled to claim exemption from the liability of paying house tax under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Tax and Fees Rules, 1960 framed under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules' and the 'said Act' respectively. The petitioner trust was established in the year 1834 and owns land and cattle sheds within the limits of Group Grampanchayat, Anne, Bhisol, Taluka Kalyan Dist. Thane. The activities of the petitioner trust are of charitable purpose including keeping cattle and other animals and birds and giving them food, shelter and medical aid and to look after old and disabled animals. The petitioner claims exemption under Rule 7(2)(c) from the liability to pay house tax leviable under the said Rules. Rule 7(2)(c) inter alia reads as under:'7. Rate of tax on buildings and lands-(1) -----(2) The followin...
Shri Lalji Ramnath Pande Vs. Smt. Hawabi Abdulla Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR463; 2004(4)MhLj1020
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner tenant challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Thane on 8th December, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 269 of 1987 confirming a decree for possession passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Vasai.2. The respondent landlord filed a suit for possession against the petitioner tenant on the ground of default and permanent construction. The trial Court negatived the ground of default in payment of the rent but decreed the suit on the ground that petitioner had made a pot mala without the permission of the respondent and that amounted to making of a permanent construction in the suit premises. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the decree on the ground of permanent additions and alterations in the suit premises and also held that the respondent was entitled to a decree for possession on the ground of default in payment of the rent by the petitioner.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ...
Brijlal Mohanlal Rathi and ors. Vs. Dayalgir Doulatgir Giri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj526
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Mangrulpir. However, the decree was reversed by the first appellate Court and the aggrieved plaintiffs are the present appellants. The plaintiff No. 3 had died during the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal. His heirs being already on record, they have filed the present appeal. The appellant No. 6 who was included in the array of the appellants later on, has purchased the suit property and has stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiffs.2. When the appeal was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent original defendant, Advocate Shri B. N. Mohta orally informed the Court that his client has informed him not to appear in the matter. In view that he could not be discharged at the last moment, his oral request for permitting his discharge, was refused.3. The appeal was heard on 16-6-2004. On 17-6-2004, Advocate Shri B. N. Mohta has filed a ...
S.F. Rego Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR753; 2005(1)BomCR283; 2004(4)MhLj974
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was serving in the Judicial Services of the State of Maharashtra. He has appointed as a Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court on 5-12-1977 and superannuated on 4-12-1987. By order dated 26-11-1987 petitioner was re-appointed for the period of 5-12-1987 to 13-4-1988. By subsequent order dated 8-4-1988, he was once again reappointed for the period from 1-5-1988 to 31-10-1988. The petitioner being reappointed his pay on re-appointment was fixed in terms of Rule 157 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Rule 2(a) of Rule 157 reads as under :'Pay on re-employment plus pension (including pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity or gratuity in lieu of pension) should not exceed the substantive pay drawn before retirement or the officiating pay, if the Government servant was continuously officiating in that post for at least one year before retirement. In cases, where the substantive/officiating pay drawn before retirement is...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »